Monday, March 21, 2016

Sequenom Petitions Supreme Court for Review of Ariosa Decision

Sequenom today filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
asking the Supreme Court to review Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom, an
important patent eligibility case described in previous posts (see for
example).If the Court grants
certiorari, it will be the sixth grant of certiorari on the issue of patent
eligibility in the last decade (the first was LabCorp v. Metabolite, a case that was fully briefed and argued but
ultimately dismissed because certiorari had been “improvidently granted”).Significantly, it would be the fourth case in
which the patent relates to diagnostic testing (LabCorp,Mayo, and Myriad where the other three).The petition for certiorari is available
here.

As framed by Sequenom, the question presented
is:

Whether a novel method is patent-eligible where: (1) a
researcher is the first to discover a natural phenomenon; (2) that unique
knowledge motivates him to apply a new combination of known techniques to that
discovery; and (3) he thereby achieves a previously impossible result without
preempting other uses of the discovery?

Sequenom argues that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Mayo will have catastrophic effects on
biomedical innovation, likely precluding effective patent protection for
important inventions such as vaccines, methods of pharmaceutical treatment, and
most particularly methods of diagnostics.Pointing to three opinion penned by Federal Circuit judges in the denial
of en banc rehearing, Sequenom argues that the Federal Circuit believes that
its hands have been tied by the broad language of Mayo, and that only the Supreme Court can address the situation.

Sequenom argues that the Federal Circuit’s decision below has
exacerbated the confusion created by Mayo
“by jettisoning the one reliable compass this Court has identified for Section
101 cases-the patent’s ‘preemptive’ scope.”Their brief posits that under the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Mayo, a number of historic inventions
would have failed the test for patent eligibility, including the method at issue in Diehr (which the Supreme Court found to
be patent eligible in 1981), the invention claimed in the very first patent
issued in the U.S. (which was signed by George Washington after being reviewed by Thomas Jefferson),
and PCR.

The petition argues that this case is an ideal
vehicle for clarifying Mayo, pointing
out that “this is an extremely well-ventilated patent, with a far-more-developed
record than is usual for Section 101 cases.”For example, the claims have been construed and the patent has already
undergone inter partes review.In
addition, the patent includes not only relatively broad independent claims, but
also narrower dependent claims that “refine down to the level of individual
tests.”

According to Sequenom, supporting amicus briefs will need to
be filed no later than April 20.I would
expect to see a number of those.Quite a
few were filed with the Federal Circuit in support of en banc rehearing - many of
them can be found in previous posts on my blog.

Great post! I am actually getting ready to across this information, is very helpful my friend. Also great blog here with all of the valuable information you have. Keep up the good work you are doing here. buy active instagram followers

I really loved reading your blog. It was very well authored and easy to undertand. Unlike additional blogs I have read which are really not tht good. I also found your posts very interesting. In fact after reading, I had to go show it to my friend and he ejoyed it as well!real estate principles and practices ct

About Me

I am a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. My primary research interests lie at the intersection of biotechnology and intellectual property. This blog provides analysis and commentary on recent developments relevant to this area of the law.